This is about Cost-benefit anaylsis in policy evaluation. My question is what factors identified promoting or inhibiting CBA to policy evaluation. This is my body .
Focus now is shifted to identify key cost-benefit analysis. Tara (1994) shows cost-benefit analysis allows for how benefit compares to the cost of each crime. Using a result that an increase in cost of each programe leads to an increase of cost criminal activity, cost-benefit analysis can explain how crime control policy is not highly related to a decrease in crime. It refutes one of the alternative assumptions, which is age is irrelevant to a decrease of crime. (Tara,1994). This cost-benefit analysis is not convincing for the policy maker who relies on emotional consequence as one component of their sentence structure (Glaser, 1973, Tara, 1994, Cohen, 2000). Tara ‘s cost benefit analysis is not possible for the policy maker. He should include the estimate of pain and suffering, loss of quality of life
Few studies are systemically evaluated cost and benefit of policy. Part of the difficult is information, for example, intangible cost such as pain, suffering, and lose quality of life are hard to take. Cohen suggests ways of monetizing on pain, suffering and loss quality of life as possible for cost-benefit analysis. However, he admits that intangible cost is sustainable in largest component of crime cost. The cost of crime includes the intangible cost suggest the benefit-cost ratio goes the other way. (Austin, 1986, Cohen, 2000) Therefore, intangible cost of crime such as pain, suffering and lose of quality of life are not easy to evaluate, early studies would suggest that omitting the estimation is useful (Glaster, 1973, p47, Tara, 1994, p.573). Few later studies tries to apply intangible cost in cost-benefit analysis, but it affect greatly to analysis. For example, Fass and Pi (2002) demonstrate how ‘quality of life’ dramatically increases the cost. He compares the cost with and without qualifies of life. He concludes that costs are sustainable only after including value of quality of life. Some other studies sweep away cost estimation instead benefit estimation alone would be used to predict effect size. Marsh(2008) pioneers the application of ‘net benefit’. He shows how net benefit of different group alone is incapable of predicting the most efficient policy.